AliceBToklasLives:But Republican Rep. Stan Lee said, "It wasn't so long ago we had prayer in the schools, but they made us take it out."

Uh, no. Nope. Students can pray all they want to. State employees just can't participate.

pyrotek85: Unless they've actually forbidden students from praying, I don't see a problem.

Yes, this.

/yeah, I know some teachers/administrators don't get this distinction//and there is, in fact, tons of teacher/coach-led prayer in public schools///doesn't particularly bother me either way - I mean we still have kids fascistly (word?) pledge allegiance to the symbol of the state

The bill says that government shall not infringe on any person's sincerely held religious beliefs unless it can show with "clear and convincing evidence" some compelling governmental interest for doing so

Like laws against gay marriage, or voter ID laws, or anti-Sharia laws.

This is a desperate move by frightened and ignorant people who have been convinced by charlatans that they are under attack.

These are the ignorant people who are claiming they are under attack and are 'protecting' their values. Apparently a core Christian value is oppressing others.

I believe the correct term is, Practicing God.Why else would there be so many "moral punishments" for opposing core Christian values? If God can admonish bad behaviors with force, as depicted, in those bible tales. Why can't God's devout followers have the same ability as a god given moral enforcement right?

The bill says that government shall not infringe on any person's sincerely held religious beliefs unless it can show with "clear and convincing evidence" some compelling governmental interest for doing so.

A "religious freedom" bill. Why do I have this tingly feeling that this is just another right-wing attempt to keep the government from preventing them from forcing their religion on other people...

Republican Rep. Stan Lee said, "It wasn't so long ago we had prayer in the schools, but they made us take it out."

FTFA:The bill says that government shall not infringe on any person's sincerely held religious beliefs unless it can show with "clear and convincing evidence" some compelling governmental interest for doing so.

Yikes, I don't actually have a problem with this! The government shouldn't be making ANY law that restricts a person's liberty unless it had some "compelling governmental interest" in doing so. If they just removed the word "religious" from the bill I'd be supporting this 100% with a smile on my face.

The bill says that government shall not infringe on any person's sincerely held religious beliefs unless it can show with "clear and convincing evidence" some compelling governmental interest for doing so.

Like, maybe, a law passed by the legislature and signed by the Governor?

Summercat:clambam: A Roman soldier stooped Rabbi Akiba and ordered him to explain the whole of the Law while standing on one foot. Rabbi Akiba answered (while standing on one foot) "Do not do to someone else what you would not care to have done to you. All the rest is commentary." Virtually every major ethical religion has a variant on this rule, except Christianity which says "Hey let's turn that upside down so it doesn't make sense! Then people will feel free to ignore it!"

Thanks again, Jesus, ya goddam hippie.

I'm all for bashing idiotic Christians who misunderstand their own religion, but....

Bwha? The closest you can come to that is "Do unto others that you would have done onto you". Is that what you're talking about?

fluffy2097:blastoh: Dansker: The Iconoclast: First, can we please have some "clear and convincing evidence" that there is a God?

One man's "clear and convincing" is another man's "nonsensical and illogical".

[www.fishink.us image 720x540]

/oblig

Asimov made his living writing books about sentient robots with positronic brains, bent into human slavery by the 3 laws of robotics. (Though he never comes out and says they are slaves, it is a major point of discussion in his robot stories. How alive are they? One even comes up with the concept of a God (And then runs equipment through a solar storm better then 2 humans EVER Could, while the human atheists debated dismantling him because he had faith.)

I'm not sure he's your go-to guy for sense and logic.

Philosophy, sure.

The man has written authoritatively on every subject in the dewy decimal system. His science books, although now outdated are still the single best introduction to an understanding of whatever subject is is I have ever read. I find his fiction boring, but when it comes to teaching about science, he is second only to Carl Sagan in my book. And Sagan focused on basic astronomy, Asimov has a book about EVERYTHING. Usually more than one.

HeartBurnKid:I'm a SubGenuis. My religion requires me to do whatever the fark I want, whenever the fark I want to do it. I think I could have some fun in Kentucky.

/maybe I should move there...//nah, then I'd have to live in Kentucky.

Hey now! Louisville is great. Lexington and Coving are ok too but especially Louisville is one part of the country that is quite heavily and reliably blue. One of the big churches here was on Fark a while back because they stopped doing any legal marriage because they could only do them for straight people.

One thing that is really funny about Kentucky is Mitch McConnell. He's the head Republican in the senate but when it comes time for him to head back home to Kentucky, he actually lives in one of the most liberal neighborhoods in the entire state.

qorkfiend:While I don't think anyone should be surprised that this cunning plan was not thought all the way through, it's amusing to note that the ultimate result of this law is to grant government a massive, broad new power: the power to determine what is and is not a "sincerely held religious belief".

Oh, it was thought through.

The Governor vetoed it, saying that the law would have many unintended side-effects and unforeseen consequences. There has been some commentary in the media here about just how far this could be abused. Basically any state law can be ignored on religious grounds now, if you can get a court to agree it was a sincere religious reason to avoid it.

The intent was at least in part to gut the "fairness ordinances" passed by some communities providing for protection of LBGT persons by letting people discriminate against them if they could prove it was religiously motivated discrimination, ditto with letting schoolkids ignore anti-bullying rules by letting them taunt and bully their fellow students if they think they are LBGT.

Lawnchair:that bosnian sniper: The funny thing is, I've already heard of a minister or two, and more than a few gay couples, in Louisville who are going to cite this very law in the course of applying for marriage licenses and marrying.

Yep, that. There are 9 Unitarian churches in Kentucky (okay, only 4 large enough to have full-time ministers), and I'm pretty sure all of them have at least one same-sex couple to marry as soon as this law is applicable.

Your move, Kentucky.

Better than the marijuana option, since it won't get you arrested. Yet I am sure they will still wriggle out of it. I just wonder how.

Ah, I know. "Disobeying the law is not the same as forcing the law to recognize you." Followed by some kid getting suspended for not attending a mandatory school prayer because they have the self-awareness and memory of a goldfish.

TheBigJerk:Better than the marijuana option, since it won't get you arrested. Yet I am sure they will still wriggle out of it. I just wonder how.

Ah, I know. "Disobeying the law is not the same as forcing the law to recognize you." Followed by some kid getting suspended for not attending a mandatory school prayer because they have the self-awareness and memory of a goldfish.

And then the school administrators get slammed repeatedly by frustrated judges. The social conservatives will then become livid that people out there are getting away with liking things that they don't like and using their own law to do it. After that there will be blood.

The legislature voted for anarchy, so yes, anarchy is what they'll get. Sad but true. The people I feel bad for are the children and folks who voted against these clowns. With any "luck" it'll get bad enough that even ardent GOP voters will vote Democrat to get this overturned.

"Proponents, who include the Family Foundation and the Catholic Conference of Kentucky, say those fears are unfounded. They argue that the bill restores a legal standard in place before recent rulings by the U.S. and Kentucky supreme courts."

So you are literally trying to turn back time to spite the recent rulings of the highest courts in the land. I don't think that's how our branches of government are supposed to work. On the bright side I moved out of KY last fall and thank goodness for that.

Arthur Jumbles:FTFA:The bill says that government shall not infringe on any person's sincerely held religious beliefs unless it can show with "clear and convincing evidence" some compelling governmental interest for doing so.

Yikes, I don't actually have a problem with this! The government shouldn't be making ANY law that restricts a person's liberty unless it had some "compelling governmental interest" in doing so. If they just removed the word "religious" from the bill I'd be supporting this 100% with a smile on my face.

This.

/On Its face it sounds like the kind of law that shouldn't be needed tho./Implying that, without it, the government could infringe on people's rights with no valid reason?

Summercat:The Foundation universe is interesting in how all those books and shorts are tied together into a single setting.

It's not interesting. It's the principle diagnosis of Asimov's Disease, which is the mistaken neurosis cropping up later in life that everything you've ever written has to be shoehorned into an overarching "future history" a la Heinlein. It's one of the reasons not to read anything Asmiov wrote after 1977.

"Proponents, who include the Family Foundation and the Catholic Conference of Kentucky, say those fears are unfounded. They argue that the bill restores a legal standard in place before recent rulings by the U.S. and Kentucky supreme courts."

So you are literally trying to turn back time to spite the recent rulings of the highest courts in the land. I don't think that's how our branches of government are supposed to work. On the bright side I moved out of KY last fall and thank goodness for that.

Plus, I don't think they actually know how law's work. If the Supreme Court rules that a particular law isn't legal, you can't just pass a law saying "now it is."